They Would Never

By Jon Gold
10/30/2006

The biggest obstacle the 9/11 Truth Movement faces, and has always faced, has been people's perception that people who serve as our elected officials would never do something as dastardly as 9/11.

One would think that all of the dastardly things this Administration has done would be enough to push anyone over that hurdle. However, maybe everyone needs a refresher of just exactly what this Administration is capable of.

If this Administration would never doing something like 9/11, then does that mean they would never do something like steal the 2000 and 2004 elections?

Does that mean they would never do something like torture?

Does that mean they would never abandon people in New Orleans, and never lie about the knowledge of perhaps the levees breaking?

Does that mean they would never cover up something as important as Global Warming?

Does that mean they would never deal with someone as criminal as Jack Abramoff?

Does that mean they would never authorize a press release telling the first responders, and the people living in the area around Ground Zero that the air was safe to breathe, and the water was safe to drink, causing upwards of 70,000 people to get sick?

Does that mean they would never plan something like bombing the Al-Jazeerah news station?

Does that mean they would never be willing to paint an American spyplane as a U.N. plane to lure Iraq into war?

Does that mean they would never run a secret bombing campaign on Iraq even before "war" was declared?

Does that mean they would never be willing to lie this country into war that has caused the deaths of 3000+ American soldiers, and upwards of 655,000 Iraqis?

Does that mean they would never use Chemical Weapons and Depleted Uranium, both classified as "Weapons Of Mass Destruction", in Iraq, some of which, causing our very own soldiers to get sick, and the very reason we went into Iraq in the first place?

Does that mean they would never approve of "Death Squads" in Iraq?

Does that mean they would never plan an illegal war with Israel against Lebanon?

Does that mean they would never discard the Constitution, something they swore under oath to protect and defend?

It's safe to say that the only thing this administration would never do is this...

The right thing.

the crypt under the WTC 5 years after 9/11

who would leave the remains of the 9/11 victims under the street for 5 years? it is the expression of pure hatred and contempt for Americans, the kind that not even our worst enemy could muster

Something...

I wrote on this topic a looooooong time ago...

Discrimination Is A Bad Thing
I watched a movie last night called "Hijacking Catastrophe". The makers of the movie tried to show the events before, and after 9/11. At one point, they made reference to the "Nuremberg Trials". After seeing mention of that, it occurred to me that maybe someday we'll see "The 9/11 Trials".

Think of it. Everyone responsible for the atrocities facing the judgment of their peers in a courtroom. That includes foreign nationals, and local ones.

I started to think of the evidence that would be brought to light, and then I took it a step further. I started to think of every other murder trial I've seen. The first thing the prosecution tries to do, is establish intent or motive. The second thing the prosecution tries to establish is proof of guilt. The defense tries to prove the innocence of their client. The final step is for a jury to decide whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent. The judge carries out the sentencing or the dismissal.

I started to think of previous trials where the defendant was found to be guilty (or innocent even though guilt was indisputable). Charles Manson killed all of those people because he enjoyed it. O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman because of jealousy. Charles Stuart murdered his pregnant wife Carol for insurance money.

When people, myself included, try to establish Government involvement in 9/11, the first response we always hear is, "The President Of The United States would never murder Americans". What puts the President and his Administration above murder? Is it money? Is it power? Is it position? To my understanding, the President Of The United States and his Administration are human. Capable of joy, capable of jealousy, and capable of greed.

During the civil rights movement, Americans fought for equality. They fought for the rights of blacks, and the rights of women. As a result, blacks received "Affirmative Action", and women received the right to vote. We learned that discrimination, in any form, is a bad thing.

The difference between a normal murderer, and a rich one with power is that a rich one with power can kill more people.

Let's not discriminate against murderers.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Historical precedent?

Jon, what would say is the last event in American history where someone from the ruling caste was truly punished for committing a horrific crime? I ask that honestly, not facetiously.

I think of Nixon, of course. But he wasn't punished for something horrific, and he didn't do jail time. Kissinger should have been tried as a war criminal, but that will never happen.

I guess what I hope to derive from your post is a sense of how we might think about "tactics" for getting the perpetrators of 9/11 punished? If we can conceive of a precedent, perhaps we can also conceive of tactics that have been successful bringing an American elite to justice for horrific crimes.

Well...

From what I understand, impeachment would allow for investigations into 9/11. I don't know for sure. Why do we have to look at how someone else in power was taken down? Isn't a crime a crime?


The Time For Debate Is Over

History could provide a tactic

A crime certainly is a crime, but crimes aren't always uncovered, and the biggest ones are rarely prosecuted.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that something like 9/11 will never be confronted directly as a crime... unless it can be attached to something else. Watergate didn't begin with the Nixon Tapes; it began with a burglary and a slush fund and such.

That the White House could be behind 9/11 is too incomprehensible for most people. One needs to begin with an ancilliary crime, such as drug trafficking or money laundering, and work back to 9/11. Capone was prosecuted for tax evasion, not multiple murders.

No judge or politician with any power is going to put Cheney on trial for 9/11; imagine how this would play with their rich friends. But a judge might accept a case about drugs, war profiteering, or something related, and in that investigation one could find documents or other evidence related to 9/11.

I just don't see this playing out another way. I mean, they killed JFK and got away with it.

Even if scientists revisited the WTC and found that explosives were used, Bush would simply use the fallback position of, "well, Al Qaeda mussa put'em thar." End of story.

Conspiracy is exceedingly difficult to prove. But the guilt of an individual taking bribes, for example, is easier.

Obstruction of Justice...

It is easy to prove that this administration fought against the families for the creation of the 9/11 Commission. It is easy to prove that this administration underfunded the Commission, limited the amount of time they had to work, and withheld pertinent documents regarding their investigation. It is easy to prove that this administration put someone in charge of that Commission that shouldn't have been there. It is easy to prove that things were omitted from the report. The 7/10/2001 meeting. Able Danger. Pakistan involvement. Sibel Edmonds. Norman Mineta. And on and on and on.

It just seems to me that justice has not been served.

Unless you think the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq were responsible for the crime.

It is easy to prove a conspiracy to cover-up. I wish a lawyer would step up to the plate, and tell us what our legal options are.


The Time For Debate Is Over

I agree. I wasn't trying to

I agree. I wasn't trying to complicate things unnecessarily. Just thought maybe history could offer a tactic.

I think my more general concern is not the lack of indictable offenses, but the lack of political and judicial will. I mean, this administration has not been challenged for ANYTHING by any level of government, and yet it's easily the most criminal in history.

Maybe the indirect approach circumvents the lack of political will (by pursuing crimes that aren't as obviously contentious)?

Regardless, I too wish a lawyer would sit down with 9/11 Truth and make a case for something really soon.

How do you vote for ea

How do you vote for ea submission?
I vote 11 on this, Jon.

EA?

What's that? And thanks.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You need to be registered here to be able to vote on stories

cbgb,

you need to sign up for a 911blogger.com account first, and then be logged in to vote....

Something else...

I wrote on this subject a looooooong time ago. It used to be called, "What's 3000 People?"

However, since I've decided I'm no longer going to say 3000, and instead say 2973+, the title is now...

What's 2973+ People?
To a man willing to kill 655,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan?

To a man willing to let people die in the Gulf Coast?

To a man willing to use nuclear options as a first strike policy?

To a man willing to let women die from complicated pregnancies?

To a man willing to destroy an environment for future generations?

To a man willing to send other people's children to die in foreign wars?

To a man willing to stop medical progress?

To a man willing to let states go broke from expensive educational programs?

To a man willing to commit election fraud, twice?

To a man willing to let the sick suffer by denying them their medication?

To a man willing to show favortism in a country stricken with the AIDS virus?

To a man willing to out a CIA Operative at the risk of other people's lives?

To a man willing to take away our Civil Liberties?

To a man willing to put this country in debt for generations to come?

To a man willing to use a tragic day like 9/11 for most of the previously mentioned atrocities?

I ask again. What's 2973+ people to George W. Bush?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You Give the Bushitler Genes Too Much Credit

While the enumeration of questions about why would "a man" do all this stuff is excellent, maybe in a way you are presuming too much. Does Bush qualify to be called a man, or is he more of a monster ?

Hate to do this, but one must wonder about his "genes" (either biological, or just generational transmission): the assets of his grandfather, Prescott Bush, were seized during WWII under the Trading with the Enemy Act. It turns out that Prescott made his fortune by helping Germany make steel to kill Allied soldiers, and by helping Farben build crematoria to incinerate Jews and other dissidents.

It was this windfall that bankrolled the Bush dynasty, and led to two US Presidents with vermin-like Nazi gens.

As such, your characterization of Bushitler is much too charitable:

"To my understanding, the President Of The United States and his Administration are human. Capable of joy, capable of jealousy, and capable of greed"

My bottom line is that we must recognize that for all practical purposes, we are not dealing with a human being, but a twisted mutation, that operates as though all human feeling and emotion has been stripped from their DNA. We don't require impeachment for such people as much as quarantine.

It's good to focus on the personal aspect of the evil that has emanted from the Bush dyansty, instead of trying to put the primary focus on some "dancing Israelis", who hardly were the ones who engineered sending a guided missile into the Pentagon, and orchestrated all of the facets of 9/11.

Well...

They most certainly would never create "Death Squads" in Iraq.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Does that mean they would never plan an illegal war with Israel

against Lebanon?

Ya know, I almost forgot about that one. What the hell was that giant mess all about?

Show "Does that mean they would" by u2r2h

what would faking the

what would faking the airplanes accomplish?

DIGG THIS!!!

http://digg.com/political_opinion/They_Would_Never
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

...

F'in eh

Jon

Thanks...